My Space Theory of how the asteroids belt exist?

Question

Could it be true that the the asteorids belt use to be a planet before it was turn into pieces, I mean look at it between Mars and Jupiter is a large space for a planet to be fit in and then orbit?

Answer 1

A common hypothesis agreed upon by most astronomers, called the nebular hypothesis, is that during the first few million years of the solar system's history, planets formed by accretion of planetesimals. Repeated collisions led to the familiar rocky planets and to the gas giants. However, if the average velocity of the collisions is too high, the shattering of planetesimals dominates over accretion, and planet-sized bodies cannot form. The region lying between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter contains many strong orbital resonances with Jupiter, and planetesimals in this region were (and continue to be) kicked around too strongly to form a planet. The planetesimals instead continue to orbit the Sun as before. The inner border of the main belt is determined by the 4:1 orbital resonance with Jupiter at 2.06 AU which sends any bodies straying there onto unstable orbits. Most bodies formed interior of this gap were swept up by Mars (which has an aphelion out at 1.67 AU) or ejected by its gravitational perturbations in the early history of the Solar System.

In this sense the asteroid belt can be considered a relic of the primitive Solar System, but it has been affected by many processes active in later periods, such as internal heating, impact melting, and space weathering. Hence, the asteroids themselves are not particularly pristine. Instead, the objects in the outer Kuiper belt are believed to have experienced much less change since the Solar System's formation.

An old hypothesis, much less favored nowadays, was that the asteroids in the asteroid belt are the remnants of a destroyed planet called Phaeton. The key problems with this hypothesis are the staggering amount of energy required to achieve this kind of effect, and the low combined mass of the asteroid belt (less than that of Earth's moon).

The asteroid belt region of space also contains some main-belt comets which may have been the source of Earth's water

Answer 2

Well, let me be the middle voice.

The guy who posted the long thing that he copied offline was at least copying something vaguely correct, but too long and too technical. The others ignore some facts in their theories.

You are correct that the asteroid belt fits into an orbit, but that doesn't mean that it used to be a planet or planets. As you note, it is in between the rocky planets and the gas giants, so the long-winded answer about accretion is most likely. Any collision or instability in a planet that would have caused it to go to pieces would be unlikely to retain the plane of the ecliptic (the orbital slant of most of the planets in our solar system).

More likely when the solar system was forming, the rocky mass that was accumulating between Mars and Jupiter was too far from the sun to hold together as a rocky planet and never became a planet.

Answer 3

Because the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is proof of the Big Bang. I do not think you understand that it wasn't a 'Big Bang' in the sense you are thinking, it wasn't like a bomb exploded. If you truly wanted an answer you would ask a theoretical physicist about M theory You are also confusing the 'big bang' with something called accretion, which is how planets are formed around stars. Seeing as how the universe existed for about 10 billion years before the earth was formed, knowledge of the big bang is unnecessary for the process of accretion, because the stuff that made up the earth and all the other planets around our star, was already here. But, since you asked people who are scientific lay people. 'Before' the big bang, there was no time, so really there is no 'before', the concept of 'before' ceases to exist 'before' the big bang. I really don't think a biological process is 'genius' as you call it, biological processes do just happen. That is how nature happens, because it just happens. Chemical reactions WILL just happen. NDMA: No I can't give you an alternative explanation to the CMRB because, unfortunately, I'm not a physicist, not really on any level. The highest science qualifications I have are A level Chemistry, Biology and Maths including Statistics and Mechanics. That does not mean that I am not scientifically literate, and I do try to keep up with what is currently going on 'in science', however, because I do not have a great deal of time to devote to these pursuits, forgive me for not 'knowing' everything there is to know about the Big Bang theory. And yes, I do tend to read publications that are intended for scientific lay people, as in, books by people like Hawking, Dawkins, Singh, Goldacre, etc. The strongest argument I am aware of that CMRB represents the light at the end of the initial expansion phase of the universe, is that it is uniform in all directions, where distribution of galaxies throughout the universe actually is not uniform, something I believe is currently a contention against general relativity, because it states the universe is pretty much uniform in all directions, when in reality, it is being discovered that it is not, there are patches of very high matter concentration and patches of none.

Answer 4

It is my belief and others as well that the asteroid belt was a giant planet and Mars was its moon. It, for some reason, exploded.

Now here's the kicker, and this is the crazy part. It is my belief that Mars once had a inhabitable atmosphere (backed up my real scientists as a real possibility). But when the big planet exploded it destroyed Mars' oxygen rich atmosphere (this part is not exactly backed up by hard science). And the best part is, that is why humans had to leave Mars. Oh yeah, I said it.

Now go ahead and tell me how crazy I am.

Answer 5

Well its possible but why would a planet just explode? Its more likely that mars and jupiter sucked up most of the matter and the asteroids are just whats left behind.

Answer 6

That's one hypothesis--and in fact scientists think it may be correct. There is currently a project to send space probes to two asteroids (Ceres and Vesta) and that's one of the questions they hope to answer.

Answer 7

these are planetesimals formed during the formation of our solar system locked in a tug of war of gravitational attraction between Jupiter and the sun

Answer 8

not really, i also thought so but if a planet could have been destroyed its position could have also changed as the mass of individual object must have decreased and the gravitation pulling it and sun towards each other could have reduced thereby changing its orbit. if you like my answer then please chose it as the best.If you want more details or want to discus something please e-mail me at [e-mail] .

Answer 9

to much for my head i have no idea

Answer 10

ya sure